4 ms·
> The fixes that have been developped so far (spf, dkim, etc) are merely lipstick on the pig, they are so optional Lipstick on a pig yes, optional, no. If you
by dtech 9y ago
> The fixes that have been developped so far (spf, dkim, etc) are merely lipstick on the pig, they are so optional
Lipstick on a pig yes, optional, no. If you want to have your e-mail delivered to Gmail you'll need them. And since Gmail is 50%+ of all e-mail that means it's pretty much mandatory.
- cm2187 9y agoLast time I looked at my incoming email traffic, a significant number of mail wasn't signed or/and didn't have spf entries. Even if it is 20% of the traffic, it's still too large to safely block.
- shawabawa3 9y ago> Even if it is 20% of the traffic, it's still too large to safely block. Maybe for you. But considering I use gmail I block it all and never notice any problems
- cm2187 9y agoGmail has the scale and the means to run all sort of sophisticated heuristic to determine whether a message is a spam or not. It's good for gmail users that they make up for the shortfall of the protocol that way. But for everyone else, the protocol needs to be fixed, you can't expect every company in the world, large or small, to build and maintain the spam/phishing/malware filters that gmail runs.